Bibliographic record
Abstract
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: (1) Describe and apply the best current high-level evidence in carpal tunnel syndrome. (2) Design a treatment plan to offer tourniquet-free, sedation-free local anesthesia for patients who wish it or who are at high risk with sedation. (3) Describe the evidence and outcomes as they relate to splinting carpal tunnel patients after surgery. SUMMARY: This is the third Maintenance of Certification article on carpal tunnel syndrome. Hentz and Lalonde summarized the best literature in 2008 in the first article. The second article, by Shores and Lee, presented the best evidence regarding assessment, surgical treatment, and outcomes from the literature published between 1999 and 2009. In this article, the author has concentrated on topics not covered in depth in the first two articles and provides an update of the highest level evidence on important topics from 2009 to 2013. Although there is some Level IV and V evidence cited in this article, most is Level I, II, and III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".